Yeah, dude. I know what he says

"In France, where the terms originated, the Left has been called "the party of movement" and the Right "the party of order"."

Seems like that goes along with what I was saying in your link there.

Or with what JBP has been lecturing about, rather.

He's not a god

He's just a guy

Seems right to me.

Nazis were on the left. Ask anyone here.

I think JBP probably has it better than anyone here, to be honest.

Authoritarian has little to do with L/R

I agree with that.

That's what I'm saying lol

But you said Richard Spencer wasn't right-wing?

Authoritarianism is not a 'Right wing' trait

Look at a freaking political compass for once

I don't see him from being much different from the Nazis, and I see them as being right-wing authoritarians.

I know the political compass man.

They're left-of-center, and all the way at the top.

Authoritarianism can happen anywhere on it, but that doesn't mean authoritarians aren't also *right-wing* authoritarians, or conversely left-wing authoritarians in the case of the Soviets.

Mussolini is *right of center*, and all the way at the top

Stalin is *far left* and at the top

Authoritarians are at the top, yeah.

I think the Nazi's are right wing.

And because Nazis are *socialists*, and *collectivize people*, they are on the *left*.

No, I think some of the things the Nazi's believed and practiced were far-left, but on the whole their motivations and dispositions seem far-right to me.

* facepalm

Name the 'right leaning policy' of theirs.

'We can order races in an ethnic hierarchy.'

Sounds like a progressive stack to me.

Seems to be a policy you don't get from left wing egalitarians.

<:think_woke:378717098681171988>

Does sound like what the progessives do huh?

Maybe the progressives are actually far-right like the Nazis??

Or maybe neither that or what you said make sense in understanding these terms.

The motivations matter. The egalitarianism that motivates the left to the corrupt end is not the same as the ideals of racial supremacy that motivates the right to their corrupt end.

Nazis had the latter motivation, as does Richard Spencer, that is why they're right-wing.

We *colloquially* refer to racists as people on the Right, but Nazis specifically are left leaning authoritarians who base their politics on *identity*.

Going all the way back to France in the 1700s, the Left has been associated with topics related to Identity politics

Nah, you don't get to put all of identity politics on the backs of leftists.

Did you read the wiki I linked to?

Not the whole thing, can't be bothered really.

You can be bothered enough to argue with me.

I enjoy conversation.

I will go and try to hear about this Nazi-left wing authoritarian thing though, just not now. I have my evenings to myself. Tomorrow at work if I can find a good podcast maybe.

But I'm not one to buy anything like that upfront.

Nazies were left wing. they were more right than true facism yes but that only edges them closer to center.

https://youtu.be/5gnpCqsXE8g

^^^^^

The only socialist aspect of Nazism were the state funded economic projects and welfare systems

And worker unions

They banned them

They had party worker unions

Hitler banned workers unions to appease the industrialists

Thatbis how they controled industry

Only party members could control certain industry

and thats why mussolini said he wasnt facist enough

As well worker unions arnt socialist

they are syndicalist

Despite the party unions, worker unions or other form of worker representation of such was illegalised as it was considered bolshevism

German labor front

Same thing different name

Party control of industry and "privatization"

These were more to get workers to support the party rather than actually represent them

No

The key to socialism is the means of production primarily. Labor unions are counter that

The taxes where to gain support

Privatisation itself is completely anti socialist

Lol

It was mock privatization

Did you not see the quotes

he gave it to his internal henchmen and subserviants

"Privatisation"

after seizing it

The term would be corrupt captalism

Naw more corrupt socialism

because the gov still owned the means just via henchmen

They weren't state run

Party run

State run

And all planned

In time of total war they were, not during peace

Show me a socialist country that does not use the state to control the means of production and i will eat my shoe

Or party

Leather shoe would be quite the delicacy in Venezuela right now <:trumped:440551399772913674>

During their *peace time* he nationalized everything and did his sudo privatization soon before it

Well obviously I can't. During peace time the industry was privately owned by the industrial magnates that supported hitler for his antil socialist ideas. During the war when industry needed to be centralised for the war effort of course thr state took over

But the economy was planned to the month

Wasnt really anti socialist just a very specific kind

It wasnt for ideological reasons, more so to support the war effort

Is someone trying to defend socialism in this channel?

Part of why he was so impatient with the invasion of russia

the german economy was set to shift gears and the deadline was coming up. Many factories were already converted

No just someone trying to deny Hitler had a socialesque economy

Part of the *its not socialism* bs

He had certain socialist elements, but concluding that he was far left for it is a huge stretch

Hitlers system was quasi based on mussalini who made italy socialist.

Oh no

What threshold does it take to meet your definition of socialism?

Even mussolini wssnt far left

facism is about middle between communism and center